The respondent mother brought a motion seeking interim joint custody and an access schedule in accordance with a s. 30 assessment report by Dr. Butkowsky.
The applicant father opposed, arguing the report's recommendations should not be implemented before trial and that the 14-year-old son wished to reside primarily with him.
The court found no 'exceptional circumstances' requiring immediate implementation of the report's recommendations, but considered the assessor's observational evidence.
The court ordered that the son reside primarily with the father but have regular weekend access with the mother, overriding the son's stated preference based on his observed comfort with her.
The father was also ordered to pay child support, spousal support, and his proportionate share of the assessment report costs.
